1986 JTR(SC) 149
1986 AIR(SC) 1719 ; 1986 AllLJ 673 ; 1986 2 CurCC(SC) 541 ; 1986 2 CurLJ 628 ; 1986 1 Scale 561 ; 1986 3 SCC 259 ; 1986 2 SCR 735 ; 1986 2 UJ 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
(From : Allahabad)
Civil Appeal No. 1360 of 1986
Decided on 23-4-1986
Onkar Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Agra and others, Respondents.
Act Referred :MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.68(d), S.68(f)(1)(d), S.68(c)
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions at S. 68-C, S. 68-D, and S. 68-F(1-C) govern the publication, approval, and operation of stage carriage permits. The scheme published under S. 68-C on June 25, 1960, remained unapproved for over twenty-five years, creating a vacuum in which temporary permits issued under S. 68-F(1-C) and S. 68-F(1-A) coexisted with a stale draft scheme. The appellants operated on permits granted during this period, while the State Transport Undertakings failure to conclude proceedings under S. 68-D led to inordinate delay, rendering the draft scheme outmoded and causing the denial of continued operation for private operators.
(B) The core legal principles are that a draft scheme under S. 68-C must be approved within a reasonable time, typically not exceeding three to five years; inordinate delay by the authority in completing proceedings under S. 68-D vitiates the process; temporary permits lose validity when a draft scheme is quashed or remains stale; and public interest and efficient transport services demand timely administrative action.
Facts of the case:
The appellants ran stage carriages on the Somna-Naujheel route under temporary permits issued under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. A draft scheme published under S. 68-C in 1960 was never approved. The State Road Transport Corporation obtained multiple temporary permits but failed to operate all services, leaving vacancies filled by other operators. After a revision petition was dismissed and increased permits created further uncertainty, the appellants were ordered to stop plying. They challenged the stoppage, arguing the temporary permits should remain valid until the draft scheme was approved.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the draft scheme had become stale and the delay in approving it was inexcusable, amounting to clear disobedience of the Act. The proceedings under S. 68-D were unduly protracted for nearly twenty-five years, prejudicing public interest. The Court quashed the stale scheme and directed that it not be proceeded with further.
Issues:
Whether a draft scheme published under S. 68-C remains valid after an inordinate delay of twenty-five years without approval under S. 68-D. Whether temporary permits issued under S. 68-F(1-C) continue in force during such delay. Whether the appellants are entitled to operate until a fresh scheme is published.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the legislative intent, as indicated by the proviso to S. 68-F(1-D), is that the period between publication of a draft scheme and its approval or replacement should not exceed three to five years. A delay of twenty-five years is unreasonable and invalidates the scheme. Consequently, the stale scheme is quashed, and temporary permits issued under it lapse, but operators are permitted to continue until a fresh scheme is published.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The draft scheme published under S. 68-C is quashed. The appellants and other operators may continue plying until 15-10-1986, after which permits under the quashed scheme cease to be effective. Fresh applications under Chapter IV of the Act may be made, and temporary permits may be granted under S. 62 in the public interest.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions at S. 68-C, S. 68-D, and S. 68-F(1-C) govern the publication, approval, and operation of stage carriage permits. The scheme published under S. 68-C on June 25, 1960, remained unapproved for over twenty-five years, creating a vacuum in which temporary permits issued under S. 68-F(1-C) and S. 68-F(1-A) coexisted with a stale draft scheme. The appellants operated on permits granted during this period, while the State Transport Undertakings failure to conclude proceedings under S. 68-D led to inordinate delay, rendering the draft scheme outmoded and causing the denial of continued operation for private operators.
(B) The core legal principles are that a draft scheme under S. 68-C must be approved within a reasonable time, typically not exceeding three to five years; inordinate delay by the authority in completing proceedings under S. 68-D vitiates the process; temporary permits lose validity when a draft scheme is quashed or remains stale; and public interest and efficient transport services demand timely administrative action.
Facts of the case:
The appellants ran stage carriages on the Somna-Naujheel route under temporary permits issued under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. A draft scheme published under S. 68-C in 1960 was never approved. The State Road Transport Corporation obtained multiple temporary permits but failed to operate all services, leaving vacancies filled by other operators. After a revision petition was dismissed and increased permits created further uncertainty, the appellants were ordered to stop plying. They challenged the stoppage, arguing the temporary permits should remain valid until the draft scheme was approved.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the draft scheme had become stale and the delay in approving it was inexcusable, amounting to clear disobedience of the Act. The proceedings under S. 68-D were unduly protracted for nearly twenty-five years, prejudicing public interest. The Court quashed the stale scheme and directed that it not be proceeded with further.
Issues:
Whether a draft scheme published under S. 68-C remains valid after an inordinate delay of twenty-five years without approval under S. 68-D. Whether temporary permits issued under S. 68-F(1-C) continue in force during such delay. Whether the appellants are entitled to operate until a fresh scheme is published.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the legislative intent, as indicated by the proviso to S. 68-F(1-D), is that the period between publication of a draft scheme and its approval or replacement should not exceed three to five years. A delay of twenty-five years is unreasonable and invalidates the scheme. Consequently, the stale scheme is quashed, and temporary permits issued under it lapse, but operators are permitted to continue until a fresh scheme is published.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The draft scheme published under S. 68-C is quashed. The appellants and other operators may continue plying until 15-10-1986, after which permits under the quashed scheme cease to be effective. Fresh applications under Chapter IV of the Act may be made, and temporary permits may be granted under S. 62 in the public interest.
ANIL DEV SINGH, O.P.RANA, R.K.JAIN, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN, RANI CHHABRA, SHOBHA DIXIT
JUDGMENT
VENKATARAMIAH, J.:— The appellants are carrying on the business of running stage carriages in the State of Uttar Pradesh. They had obtained temporary permits under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the route Somna-Naujheel. They could not obtain permits under Chapter IV of the Act to operate on the said route since a scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act in the year 1960 was in force. It would appear that the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) applied for fifteen temporary permits for operating its stage carriages on the route in question and obtained them from the Regional Transport Authority, Agra under S. 68-F(1-A) of the Act as per its order dated 31-1-1984. But the Corporation introduced only five services against fifteen permits. Thus there were ten vacancies. The Regional Transport Authority granted ten temporary permits to ten private operators in those ten vacancies,. One Davender Pal Singh who was holding a nontemporary permit issued under Chapter IV of -the Act filed a revision petition under S. 64-A of the Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petition was dismissed. On account of the pressure of traffic the number of temporary permits was increased to thirty four. The Corporation was- granted these additional permits. But it failed to operate its services under all the permits issued to it. The private operators who wanted to operate the vehicles were not granted temporary permits. The appellants were asked to stop plying their vehicles under the temporary permits obtained by them. Aggrieved by the stoppage of the running of their vehicles, they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1613 of 1985 contending that once temporary permits were issued under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Act they would remain in force until the draft scheme published under S. 68-C was approved under S. 68-D of the Act. The High Court being of the opinion that on permits being issued to the State Transport Undertaking, i.e. the Corporation in this case, the temporary permits issued to other private operators under S. 68F(1-C) of the Act came to an end, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment in the writ petition, the appellants have lifted this appeal by special leave. When this petition came up for admission on April 1, 1986 before this Court it was urged by the appellants that the draft scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act having become stale was liable to be quashed in view of some of the recent decisions rendered by this Court on the basis of the above submission notices were issued to the State Government and the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - the respondents herein to show cause why the draft scheme should not be quashed. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation opposing the prayer made in this appeal.
2. The draft scheme admittedly was published under S. 68-C of the Act on June 25, 1960 more than 25 years ago and it has not yet been approved. It is still in the stage of a draft scheme. We have been taken through the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation setting out the several steps taken in the proceedings before the Hearing Authority under S. 68-D of the Act. On going through the counter-affidavit we are not convinced that sufficient grounds have been made out for sustaining the draft scheme at this distance of time. It is seen that there is tremendous pressure for the grant of permits to ply stage carriages on the route. Yet the State Transport Undertaking which is expected to provide adequate, efficient, economic and co-ordinated service has failed to do so even after twenty five years have elapsed. It may be that some operators had adopted delaying tactics. But the Hearing Authority under S. 68-D of the Act should have taken necessary steps to conclude the proceedings early. The delay of nearly a quarter of a century is inexcusable. The draft scheme has virtually become out-moded. We find that there has been clear disobedience of the provisions of the Act. The proviso to S. 68-F(1-D) of the Act which provides that where -the period of operation of a permit in relation to any area, route, or portion thereof specified in a scheme published under S. 68-C of the Act expires after such. publication, such permit may be renewed for a limited period but the permit so renewed shall cease to be effective on the publication of the scheme under sub-sec. (3) of S. 68-D of the Act indicates the legislative intention regarding the maximum period that may be spent on the proceedings which intervene between the date of publication of the draft scheme under S. 68-C of the Act and the publication of the approved or modified scheme under S. 68-D(3) of the Act. It suggests that it cannot be longer than three to five years which is usually the period during which a permit can be in force without renewal as provided in S. 58 of the Act. It could never have been in the contemplation of Parliament that the period for approving a scheme with or without modification or for rejecting it could be twenty-five years as in this case. The undesirable effects of the inordinate delay in completing the proceedings under S. 68-D of the Act are many. Two of them are :
(i) it exhibits lack of interest on the part of the administration in bringing into effect administrative decisions without undue delay and
(ii) the public interest suffers as the members of the public are denied normal stage carnage services of an improved kind because the operators who are operating on temporary permits would have no incentive to develop any enduring goodwill and naturally not interested in providing better services.
3. The period of such uncertainty should not be allowed to continue any longer in the instant case.
4. In Yogeshwar Jaiswal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1985) 2 SCR 790, this Court has explained how inordinate delay in acting under S. 68-D of the Act would prejudice the public interest. Following the above decision in Phool Chand Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain, (1985) 4 SCC 190 and in Shri Chand v. Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, (1985) 4 SCC 169, this Court has quashed the schemes published under S. 68-C of the Act since they had not been approved by the authority concerned under S. 68-D of the Act within a reasonable time. Following the three decisions referred to above we quash the scheme which is the subject-matter of this appeal and direct the Hearing Authority under S. 68-D of the Act not to proceed with the hearing of the matter. It. is now open to the Corporation to publish, if it so desires, a fresh scheme under S. 68-C of the Act. We, however, permit the Corporation and others who are at present operating stage carriage vehicles on the route in question pursuant to the permits issued under S. 68-F(1-A) or under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Act as the case may be to operate their stage carriages until 15-10-1986. If a fresh scheme is published under S. 68-C of the Act within that period it shall be open to the Corporation to apply for fresh temporary permits under S. 68-F(1-A) of the Act. On permits being granted under S. 68-F(1-A) of the Act all the permits now issued under S. 68F(1-A) or under S. 68-F(1-C) of the Act shall come to an end. Until a fresh draft scheme is published under S. 68-C of the Act, it shall be open to any person to make applications for a stage carriage permit under Chapter IV of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority may also grant, if it finds that it is necessary to do so in the public interest, temporary permits under S. 62 of the Act until the draft scheme is published.
5. This appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1986 SC 1719
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.